The decision dated 12-5-1984 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5 Faisalabad in his appellate jurisdiction under section 17, Payment of Wages Act is informed to be wrong and improper.
2. The facts of the case are that the vision of the petitioner, who was Gangman had failed but he was found fit for category 'C' 2 He was found fit for the post of Gang Cooli. But at the relevant time there was no vacancy. He was sent on leave for six months and in the man. i.e a post of Mali Cooli had fallen vacant but it was not offered to him. He thereupon brought an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was dismissed. On appeal a direction was issued to the respondent to post the appellant on the said post. No order was passed about back benefits. A sweeper was posted as Mali Cooli and the post of sweeper was offered to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the offer and submitted joining report with the protest that in compliance with the order of this Tribunal the post of Mali Cooli should be given to him. He was not put on duty as sweeper, he, thereupon, made .An application under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act. The Authority accepted the petition and ordered the respondent to pay Rs.9 658 as the arrears of pay. The order was challenged in appeal before the learned lower Court, which was accepted holding that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was not competent.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the petitioner did not join duty as sweeper he was not entitled to the wages, therefore, the Authority was not competent to grant the relief. It has also been argued that since the question of entitlement of wages was involved the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction. Since the petitioner had submitted his duty report twice vide Exh.R-5 dated 27- 10-1981 and Exh.R-6 dated 31-10-1981, therefore, there is no force in the argument that he had not accepted the offer. As soon as he reported for duty he became entitled to wages. There is no evidence on the record that the petitioner had refused to work as sweeper, Exhs.P.5 and P.6 etc. Not stand rebutted. It is not argued on behalf of the respondent that the amount of wages allowed by the Authority was excessive.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the revision petition is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court passed in appellate jurisdiction,, the order of the Authority is restored.
A. E.